POLITICAL LEADERSHIP IN NEPAL:IMAGE, ENVIRONMENT AND COMPOSITION'

Krishna Hachhethu

Stage: Final contest of Goon Khane Kathii (a riddle competition)2061 (2004).

Actors: Madan Krishna Shrestha and Hari Bansha Acharya (twofamous comedians) with Narendra Kansakar (as umpire).

In the opening scene of the play, the two riddle contestants, MOOanKrishna $hreslha and Hari Bansha Acharya, are very enthusiastic.Then they make pretensions 10 walk OUI after they hear !.heannouncement of the prize: a ne/a (leader). 'GtlllOlme (stinky) nefa!'is their immediate reaction. However, they change their minds andbecome all excited when the umpire (Narcndra Kansakar) makes itclear thal the prize is 'SIt'Ocha chabi ko (clean image) neta'. Theyremark thal in the absence of swacha chahi ko neta. the country isheading from one bad situation to a worse onc. so thal it will end upin the mason (the cremation ground). They express their hopes in thesong lyric sung by Narayan GopaJ: Euto miinche ko miiyo-Ie katipharak pardachajindagi mii (one person's love makes a differencein life). Similarly, a (dean) leader can make a significant differencein the country's present sad predicament.

This comedy scene is, I believe, reflective of the feelings of the commonpeople relating to three fundamental questions of party leadership in Nepal.First, the figure of political leadership in the imagination of Nepali people;second. the frustrations of the people with the party leadership; and third. thepeople's desire for an effective leader capable of resolving the crisis in thecounlry.

This crisis has further deepened in a most intractable way as aconsequence of the revival of the royal regime. Though reestablished only in1990, democracy was forced to collapse, after its second experiment of underfifteen years, by King Gyanendra's assumption of executive power formonarchy in October 2002. This culminated with his seizing absolute powerin a COUI) d'bat on I February 2005. This is reminiscent of the short-livedfirst experiment with democracy in the 19505 that was similarly dismantledin December 1960 by the late King Mahendra, father of present KingGyanendra. After 30 years of monarchical rule, a system of multipartydemocracy was reinstated in 1990 through a successful mass 'movement,popularly known as jan andolan. Before the democratic process attained

Contributions to Nepalese Studies, Vd. 34, No. 1 (January 2007), 25-43Copyright If> 2007 CNASlTU

26 CNAS Journal, VoL 34, No. 1 (January 2007)

maturity. the multiparty syStem faced tne seriolls challenge of an armedinsurgency by the Communist Party of Nepal or crN (Maoisl). Whether ornot the ePN (Maoist) will iOucceed in their go..1.1. their l>truggle h:ls been usedby Ihe palace as:m excuse for replacing democracy with the royal regime.

The present polilical and constitutional impasse contributing to thiscalastrophic situation can be seen as the outcome of a combination of threefactor:-.. First. failure of the parties and leadership on multiple fronts includinggovernance; second, the ongoing ann<..-d insurgency by the ePN (Maoist)since February 1996; and third, the seil.ing of jJQwer by King Gyanendra inOctober 2002 <md again in Februmy 2005. One m<ly argue that KingGyancndra's aCI of taking power back wa~ a reaction to the failure of politicalparties 10 tackle the Maoist Insurgency. 11 is. I firmly believe. ralher mainly aproducl of the King's own ambition. Weak parties and leadership jUl>{conlributed to the King's ambition and the pala(.'c·s ploy to rcturn to thecentre of power. The mooar""hy and the Maoists are beyond the scope of thispaper. To glance at the current state of affairs is. howcver. rele\ant since thelelldcp,hip factor is one of the impol1<lllt parts of the political developments inthe po~t-1990 period.

This paper analyses three key questions concerning the politic,]1leader...hip of Nepal. The fir'" part describes the ma.~~ivc changes in the imageof parlY politic:l1 leaders from great men to Illoral degenerate... The secondpart of the paper explains the post-l990 polilical en\'ironment a!> :l potentialsource or con<;traint to Ihe leadership of the Prime Mini!'ter (PM). The thirdpart relates 10 leader<J1ip slructure in tcnns of caste/ethnic composition.

Image ChangeTo begin with the construction of leadership ill the imllgination of the Nepalipeople. Ict us refer to the above-mentilll1ed comedy scene once llgain inwhich slI'ucha c/I(wiko lIew was pomuyed "ith fhe di ...tinet characteristics.:uncontaminated. dedicated to people's cau~. committed to tight corruption.dC\OIed to development. and C'd.pable of rcl>toring Nell3rs Im.t image as apeaccful country in the world. A pilot sune} with 171 respondents (21central level leaders, 100 local leader.. and 50 commoners) also revcals Ihmleadefl>hip is primarily conceived as requiring a 'good human being'. Thesecond important quality of lelldership i~ 'visionary' according to centrulleaders, ·party organizer' in the views of local le,lders, and 'dedicated todevelopment' according lo commoners. Besides. other important ingredientsof leadership as identified by different types of respondents arcintellectuality. sa<..Tifice and a commitment to ideology (Baral. Hachhelhu andSharma 2001: 104-110).

As there is linle wrinen on party leadership in Nepal aside from a fewbiographies. the portrait of leadership projected in the comedY-l>ketch andunearthed by our pilO! sludy can be taken as source materials. Hence, whm

Political leadership in Nepal 27

Nepali.. understand about Ihe leadership is reflected in the trait theory ofleadership. I Leadership is generally underslood as the pos~ession of specialqualities and character by individuals, which differentiate them from thecommon mass and enable them to influence. control and manage anorganiwtioo. Trait based studie... suggest leadership qualilies as personalallributes e.g. persistence. pas!.ion. conviction. integrity. courage. vision,inlegrity, trust, curiosity and daring.

Perception of leadership as a great man or heroic personality wa~ built inthe hislOrical context that invariably dates back to the origin and evolution ofpolitical panics in Nepal. Nepali political panics originated in thebackground of struggle against the oligarchic Rana regime. The party's imageas an "gent of change in the political realm through the anti·Rana lllovementexpanded to social and economic spheres as well in the post-Ran,l period.During the first experiment of multiparty (Iernocracy (1951.1960). Nepalattempted to break away from its past and looked fllrwnrd to politicalfn:edom. economic development, social justice, the spread of education andcomlllunication? Political panics led a campaign to abolish the land-basedfeudal social and economic sy.,tem. The Communist Party of Nepal (CPN) - aparent organization of all communist parties of epal. while introducingMarxist ideology to Nepali politics through participation in liberaldemocratic processes, sought a radical and revolutionary tr•.tIlsformation inNepali society (K.C. 1999) . The dominant party at that time was NepaliCongress (NC). which adopted the ideology of democratic socialiSIll. The NCgovernment (1959-1960) under Prime Minisler (PM) RP. Koirala took anumber of progressive social and economic policy measures directed againstthe syslem of land-based feudal exploitation. This explains why polilicalparties and leaders of Nepal ha\c been acknowledged as agents of change inthe ~ial, economic and political structures of the country.

Even during the period of the Partyle."S Panchayat regime (1960-1990),partie.~· images as agents of change was retained. but mainly in the politicalsphere. Since party activities were legally prohibited. political partiesconr....entr:ltcd on building public opinion against the authoritarian panchayatsystem rather than on mass mobili/..1tion through public policy platforms.Because of lheir lireless struggle ~llld sacrifice against the partyless panehaymsy~telll. political pm1ies and leaders have become synonymous with multi­party democracy and as agents of change. The credentials of parties andleaders as symbols of democntcy wa" further boosted on account of the NCand the ULF (United Left Front. comprbed of seven splinter left groups)being the catalysts of the 1990 ill/m Andolan (mass movement), whichoverthrew the three-decade long partyles" authoritarian panchayat system andrestored muhiparty democracy.

28 CNAS Journal, Vo!. 34, No. 1 (January 2007)

Leadership is the human face of the party which largely represents theparty's values, ideology, policy and programme. The image of the leaders ofNepali political parties, except those of Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP),bas been built on the ground of their long struggle and sacrifice for cause..~

and principles. Their contribution to the early phase of democratic transition,notably in the restoration of multi-party system and transformation ofsovereign power from the palace to the people by means of the newconstitution of 1990, waS highly appreciated. TIlUS some parties and theirleaders gained enormous popularity. It was manifested by the results of allthree parliamclllary elections and two local elections held in the post-1990period that the NC and the Co~munist Party of Nepal, Unified Marxist·Leninist (UML) - the two major pwtners of the 1990 jail andolall - emergedas the largest parties of Nepal.

On account of historical factors, the demand for leaders with greatqualities was elevated by a national mood in the post-panchayat phase. Theinitial post- jon alldQ{an period was an euphoric phase characterized byparties' lofty promises and people's expectations of change everywhere. Thisis not unique to Nepal as is the case in most Third World countries. Indcveloping countries. there is generally a demand for strong leaders owing IQtheir transitiOnal nature comprising of two dominant characteristics. First, thepeople aspire for a bener life after any political uphe<Jv<JL Second. faith in astrong leader rather than an institution is usual in such societies.notwithstanding the validiry of divine right of the King, or the authority ofthe colonial masters is challenged.

Michael Brecher's survey reveals that a Prime Minister with leffective'and 'strong' leadership qualities was desired in India evell 20 years after itsindependence (Parry 1969: 71-78). This exemplilies the case in Third Worldcountries. When II llation is brimming with enthusiasm, competent men are1110re in demand. It is believed that "leadership arising OUl of revolutions willhave a transforming character (Blondel 1978: 89). In most Asian cultures,leaders are expected to be nurturing. benevolent, kind. sympathetic figureswho inspire commitment and dedic,ttion" (Pye 1985: 28). Like in other ThirdWorld countries, Nepali people in post- the jon andolan period. wanted aleader with transformative qualities.

BUI the Nepali people's hope in their leadership has gradually turned intofrustration and consequently the perception has changed. This is anaccumulative effect of the post-1990 political developments. Unlike thesmCXlth transition in the early period of the 1990s in setting up democraticinstitutions, Le. making of tbe constitution, holding electionfi, formation ofthe parliament and an elected goverrunent; democracy in its functionalaltributes, overwhelmed by power-centric intra-party and inter-partyconflicts. was widely perceived as being eroded.) This was manifested in theinstability of the government. The first elected majority government of the

Political Leadership in Nepal 29

NC led by Girija Pr:l$.1d Koirala collapsed before its prescribed five yeartenure due to internal conflicts within the ruling party. After the 1994 mid­term election. the UML formed its minority government under PM ManMohan Adhikari but collapsed after nine months and all succeedinggovernments survived for only short periods. During the hung parliamem(November 1994 - May 1999), Nepal experienced seven differentgovernments and coalitions. This politics of making and breaking thegovernment led to a Ilumber of divergence in the party system of Nepal. i.e.the intensification of power-centric. intra-party conOict~, the defiance of partyleadership, the diSintegration of parties, hor~.trading of members ofparliament (MPs), manipulation of constitutional loopholes. politicalinterventions by the palace and the court, etc. The return of a one-partymajority government of the NC after the 1999 pari iamentary election was ofno help either in changing the political scenario or in the situation brought bythe leaders of the government thrice before the party formally split in May2002. A deteriorating political situ:ltion was evident in a number ofdevelopments between 1991 and October 2002. The House ofRepresentative.'> (HoR) was dissolved six times, special sessions of theparliamcllt were summoned seven times, and the government changed eleventimes.

The party system and the leudership that evolved posl-1990 were failing tolink democracy with good governance and delivery of service to the society.Rather, parties and leaders concentrated more on power politics and self~

aggrandizement. breaching democratic values and norms, which in turnintensified political instability. anarchy and chaos. The disappoimment withparties and their leadership was well manifested in a nationwide surveyconducted III August-September 2004.4 Fifty-seven percent of therespondents said that they were dissatisfied with the way democracy workedin Nepal. Their dissatisfaction was manifested in several areas in response toa number of questions.

• 61 % felt that citizens did not enjoy equal rights.• 58 % felt that not everyone is free to speak one's mind.• 77 % disagreed with the statement that food, clothing and shelter

were available to everyone.• 46 % said that the national economy has worsened compared to a

few years ago.• 56 % said that the increase in corruption is an outcome of failed

democracy.• 55 % said thal their place of living was comparatively unsafe than a

few years ago.• 94 % observed an increase in political instability post-I 990.

30 CNAS Journal, Vo!. 34, No. 1 (Ja.nuary 2007)

Leadership \\Ias perceived as the main reason for the fall of democracy. Thesame survey revealed that people's faith in parliament and political partieswas lower than other state institutions. Ninety-five percent of the surveyedrespondents fclt that political leaders were involved in personal and partyinterests rather than in the national interest. A previolls Sludy revealed thatLhe leadership or both central 'Uld local levels realizC<l thal the decline ofcredibility in their political leadership wns mainly because they wereperceived as 'sclrish and corrupt', that there was a 'gap between theirpromises and performance' and that they wen.': 'proJlloting valueless andnormlcss politics' (Haral, Hachhethll and Sharma Zool: 121). l1lCirreali:lMion, however. did not change to substantial rdorms. Consequently.people's perception of leadership changed rrom that of a grC3t man togmwlIfle (Slinky).

PM and Pulitical EnvironmentWhile it is tfllC that personal (in)ability and attributes of leaders matter burthis is only half the ~10ry. The other half lies in the ('ircumslances in which aleadership has 10 function, sO it hi important to understand the reasons behindthe succcssc:.; und failures of it kudership. A situational theory of leadershipargues thlll leaders are prisoners of their envirQnment, and they can do onlywhat the environment permits them to do, Rober Elgic (1995: 13) suggeststhat "Presidents and Prime Ministers operate within it framework of complexinstitutional structures, historical forces and $ociewl demands. TI1Cseinstitutions, forces and demands collectively comprise the leadershipenvironment". This paper will now focus on the leadership of the primeMinisters of Nepal as eonditioned by political environment.

Prime Ministers of NeDul, 1991·2002S No Primc 1\1inistcr PrartV/Pllrties Period Dalcs

First Pllrliamcnt (1991-1994)I Girl"a P. Koirala NCma'onty 43 months 26/5/91- 28/11/94

Scwnd Parliamcnt (19')4 ·1999)2 Man M. Adhikan UMLminoritv 9 months 29f1 194 - 1019/953 Shcr B. Dcuba NC-RPP-NSP 18 months t 1/9195-11/3197

coalition4 Lokendra B. RPP-UML-NSP 8 months 12!3f97 - 5/10197

Chand c«t1ition5 SUl)'U B. llmpa RPP-NSP·NSP 6 months 6/10/97 - 25/3/<)8

co.'1lition6 Giri'a P. Koimlu Ne minorit 5 momhs 26/3/98 26/8/98J Girija P. Koirala NC·ML-NSP 4 months 26!8/9!l - 2J 1219$

coalition8 Girija P. Koirala NC·UML-NSP 5 months 23/12198 -2615/99

CQ<lliliOrt

Political Leadership in Nepal 31

Third P:lrliamcnt (l9lJ9 2002)<) KrishoD P. NG majority 10 monlhs 27/5/99 -913100

Bhatlarai10 Giri-a P. KoiraJa NCma-orit· 28 mooths IOf3/00 - 221710111 Sher B. Deuba Ne ma·ont 14 months 23/7/O! -4/1 0/02

The 1990 constitution of Nepal adopted the British and Indian model ofparliamentary democracy. This parliamentary system is known as the cabinetsystem and places the position of the PM as primus illler pare.5. 1l1isparliamentary ~ystcm is therdore called the prime millistClial sy.~tem. Beingthe highest state authority. the PM is the key perSOn in the parliamentarysystem.

British and Indian expcricnce.~ suggest some important points andconditions for the parliamentary democracy to be able to operate by means ofa prime ministerial system. The first point is the personal and institutionalc:'tpability of the PM to manage the system. Second. it is essential that thehead of the state - the king in a monarchical country and the president in arepublican state - mllst limit hislher formal power to enCourage. advise andwarn the government. ThirJ. the post of the PM shoulJ be held by a topleader of the ruling party so tha! he/she can command the leadership of boththe government and the party; or there should be a system by which theelccted party's wing gains ascendancy over the organizational apparatus.Fourth, the governmcnt should be responsible to parliament - implying aconsideration of opposition voices - when making major policy decisions.TIle opposition. in turn, should not fall prey to power before the next electionin order 10 insure the stability of government. Doe.." Nepal have suchconducive conditions and practices?

Limitcd GO\'crnntcntThe key political institutions and environment - that could be both resourcesand constraints - in which Ihe PMs of Nepal worked in the pre-October 2002are: the constitution. the monarchy, the party and the opposition. TIlOugh theconstitution provided a parli:llllcntary system, it was framed adoptingLocke's principle of li mited government in many ways. First, the constitutionplaced the king as a 'semi constitutional monarch' with a role in extraordinary situations i.e. dissolution ofpilrliament, emergency and mobilizationof army. Second, the constitutional provision of "Constitutional Committee"."Judicial Council" and "Security Council" that were constituted by themembers of other forces besides the government curtail the executiveprivilege of the government. Third, the provision of ratification by a twothird~ majority of the parliament on certain matters such as declaring anemergency, major foreign policy decisions and constitutional amendmentsalso imposed several limitations on the government.

32 CNAS Journal, Vat. 34, No. 1 (January 2007)

Other political environments conditiooing the PM that appeared in thecourse of this exercise and experiment were tbe lack of responsibility ofgovernment \'is~a~\'is the opposition. an obstructive opposition and a lack ofunity and cohesiOll in parties - panicularly when they were in power.Moreover, Nepal's situation is different from the UK and India in two otheraspects. First... unlike the head of state of tbe UK and India. Kings of Nepalare ambitious. The army has always been loyal to the monarchy rather thanthe political panies. Second, the Communist parries play a very influentialrole. The following sections offer a brief illustration of how the PMs wereconditioned by some key political institutions and environment.

Problems WithinThe ruling party could be a major resource or a main constraint IQ theauthority of the PM. In countries where democracy is advanced, certainmechanisms have developed to convert the party's strength into a PM's asset.Two main reasons that have been responsible for a cohesive Party­government relation in Western and other South Asian countries are:(a) The PM or President generally holds the leadership of both the

government and the party. In the case of a division of leadership in twofronts, the formal post of party leader is generally given to a lessinfluential person.

(b) Western countries and India have developed a system - through longpractice and traditioo - by which the party organization usually plays asutxJrdinate and supportive role to the elected leaders.s Nepal'sexperience is different. As a result the PM's power and authority wasstrictly limited by his own ruling party.

All the major parties - NC. UML and RPP - had the historical experience ofworking under a system of collective leadership. Since the death of itscharismatic lead~ B.P. Koirala in 1982. the Ne built up a system of lroikaleadership which comprised of their top three leaders G.M. Singh, K.P.Bhauarai and G.P. Koirala, and the superstructure of the party enjoyedabsolute power in laking decisions on behalf of the pany. Collectiveleadership in the UML, similar to RPP. was eSlablished on the basis that itwas a unified party of several splinter groups. The party's top-ranking leaderswere more or less in the same order in terms of age, political career andcompetency. The RPP is also a unified party of two groups, each led byformer PM L.B. Chand and $.B. Thapa (Thapa recently formed a separateparty), and the ranking of leaders in the party more or less replicates theirposition in the past under the panchyat system.

A system of collective leadership in the ruling party could be a resourcefor lhe PM if it were to operate cohesively, but this was net found in Nepalduring the democratic period (1990-2002). Instead. the pmctice of collective

Political Leadership in Nepal 33

leadership became the source of internal conflict and factions and contributednegatively to the capacily of the PM. Moreover. the prevalence of collecli,'eleadership impeded the move IOwards a system of ascendancy of the electedleader over an organizational leader. The dominance of Ihe organizationalwing of a party persisted for several reasons. Leadership of the organizationalwing was mostly held by a prominent personalilY rather than one from theelected body. The party central commiltee look final decisions on mallerssuch as disciplinary action and the selection of candidates for elections. Astudy of 245 out of the total 265 members of parliament (MPs) of bothHouses revealed that the power to take major decisions both in and out ofparliament rested with the party central committee (Hachhethu 2004). In anygiven situation, the PM has to depend on the support of the organizationalleader of the ruling party, but relations between the party leader and the PMhave always been strained. Worst of all. conflicts between the organizationalleader of the ruling party and the PM intensified to the extent that most of thegovernments post-I990 eventually collapsed. Examples include:

• The NC government led by G.P. Koirala collapsed in July 1994because of the absence of 35 dissidenl MPs during a vote on thegovernment's annual policy and programme. Krishna P. Bhanaraiwas the party president during the time.

• The NC-Ied coalilion government under PM S.B. Deuba collapsedin March 1997 due to me absence of two NC MPs in a vote ofconfidence. The party president was Girija P. Koirala.

• The RPP led coalition government under PM Lokendra B. Chandcollapsed in June 1997. The party president was Surya B. Thapa.

• Krishna P. Bhattarai resigned from the post of PM in March 2000owing to the passing of a no-confidence motion by 113 members ofthe NC in the HOR. The party president was Girija P. Koirala.

• The NC government led by Sher B. Deuba collapsed in May 2002due to the party's decision to oppose the PM's proposal 10 extendthe state of emergency. The party president was Girija P. Koirala.

In other instances of the downfall of me government, e.g., the UML-minoritygovernment of Octohcr 1995, the RPP-Ied coalition government of March1998. and me NC-majority governmenl of July 2001 - the internal problemsof the respective ruling party were not a decisive factor. The leaders of thesegovernments, Man Mohan Adhikari. Surya B. Thapa and Girija P. Koiral,were the presidents of their respective parties at the time. The PM enjoyedgreater leverage while holding principal post in the party organization aswelL During these times. internal conflicts manifested in other ways.Disobeying the party establishment eventually resulted in party splits asshown by the divisions in the RPP in January 1998. the UML in March 1998,and the NC in May 2002.

34 CNAS Journal, Vol. 34, No, 1 (January 2007)

The leadership of the PM. despite being the highest post in theparliamelltary system. had become weak and circumscribe<! by the polities ofhung parli:llnents and power equation~ within the ruling party/parties. Thepersonality of the pOSt· 1994 prime ministers was overshadowed either by asystem ofhigh commtmd of coalition panies (constituted outside the purviewof the stale apparatus but working as steering commiuec laking aU importantdecisions of the government) or by the imposing nature of the second man inthe cabinet: (deputy prime minister Madhav Nepal :lnd 8am Dev Gautamduring the govemment formally led by PM late Man Moh~m Adh.ikari andLokendra Bahadur Chand for instance5). All governments under hungparliament were obsessed with ~urvival crisi?~ and the main eoncern of <IllPMs was to retain the pOSt as long a~ possible rnthcr than consolidation ofone's own leadership by providing effective and strong goVel1llnent.

Obstructive OppositionOppc~ili()n party could be a re.~(lurcc or constraint to the PM depending

on relati(;ms between the treasury and opposition pany. Except for a shortperiod when the UML waS in power. the communists were in the oppositionand the Ne was in the government. The communist parties had usually takenradical position vis-a-vis the government. In the beginning. the anti­communist image of l,he first elected PM G.P. Koirala fueled the oppositionin taking hard position and obstructive roles. The UML declared its strategyof opposition from Sadak dekhi Sad(m samma (from street to parliament).Calls for balldhs. violent street agitation, boycotting of public programmesattended by the PM and ministers etc. were some of the ways adopted by theUML in alliance with other communist pmties. The UML chose non­parliamentary venues to display its appositional role. Such a pattern ofresorting to street agitation politics was adopted time and agnin. For instance,all opposition parties completely hoyeollcd the whole session of parliament(February-April 2001) demanding the resignation of the then PM G.P.KoiraJa <IS the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of AULhorityimplicated the involvement of the PM in cOITuption in the L1uda air deal.Such a manner of stiff opposition hindered the PM.

Some change was noticeable between the government and oppositionrelations from the time of hung parliament, shifting the key venue from thestreet to the parliamem in taking decisions on major issues. However, it didnot help in strengthening the PM's position. The main target of theopposition. whichever party that would be, wa~ to pull dowll the PM from hispost. At the time when Sher B. Deuba was the PM (in 1995-97 and in 2OO1~

2002), a politics of consensus between the government and oppositionappeared and consequently the Mahakali tJeaty wilh India and extension ofemergency were passed by the parliament in Seplember 1996 and February2002 respectively. These were. however, exceptional cases since the

Political Leadership in Nepal 35

dominant trend of oppositional politics was directed <It weakening anddiscrediting the ,silting PM. The opposition partic.'! had a tendency to culrivateinternal division within the ruling party with thc help of negotiations with thedissident faction of the ruling part),. Such unholy alliances between theoppo~ition and the dissident faction of the ruling party proved detrimental tothe JXlwer and po!>ition of the PM.

• In 199.... :l secret understanding \\<lS m:lde between thc UML andorganizational leader!> of the ruling NC part)' (O.M. 5ingh and K.P.Bhattami) to oust the then PM G.P. Koirala.

• In July 1994. the MP,s of oPPoSition pm1ies and dissident MPs ofparliament joilllly gave a (>Ctition to the king requesting to refusePM Koirl:l'!> recommcndation of dissolution of the HOR.

• In JuJy 1995, the NC along wilh other opposition parties petitionedthe Supreme Court against the then UML gmcrnment"s decision ofdissolving the HOR. This trend v,as followed in .subsequelll eventswhenev..:r the sining PM dissolved the HOR, Le. in 1997 by the thenPM Surya B. lllapa and in May 2002 by the then PM Sher B.Deuba.

• In 2002, G. P. Koirala (presidenl of the ruling NC) and the UMLleaders united for a national governmenl IQ replace the Deuba ledNe majority government.

Ambitious MonarchThe po!>t-l990 PM.. -- who had bt.-cn conditioned b} intense intra-partyfactional conflicti> and non-cOOI>er:lIioll by the opposition parties -~ hadseveral conStrainls in dealing wiTh the king. The PM's rcliance on the palaceincreased as lTluch a~ he faced a survival crisis from hi.; Qwn party lInd fromlhe Opposilion partics. The PM's dependency on the palace quitc visiblyincrca-.ed particularly since the military became involved in countering theMaoist insurgelll,:y. How the palace r~ponded and reacted to the emcrgingpolitical scenario became a vital point vis~a~vis power and authority of thePM.

TIle king's role~ became crucial for four major reasons. Onc. late KingBirendrn's con~ent to the 1990 constitution - which reduced his positionfrom absolute rulcr 10 semi-consfiunional monarchy - did not surfnce withconvictioll. Instead he was forced to promulgate it by the posl-1990 massmovement.\> Two, despite formal reduction of the king's position. the 1990changes were limited in political and le£31 structure,s. The popular forceswcre able: 10 capture elected bodie,>. i.e. local government. parliament andgovernment, but the domination of royal trustees in leadership of other slateorgan~ i.e. court. bureaucracy. police. army. constitutional bodies erc.remained unchanged. Three. the history. culture and tradition of the countryalso inlluenced lhe rnindSt:t of Nep:lli clites, including party leaders. while

36 CNAS Journal, VoL 34, No. 1 (January 2(07)

considering the palace as one of the po....'Cr centres of Nepal despite formaltransformation of sovereignty from the king to the people by the 1990constitution. Foorth, the constitution itself allocated the position of monarchybeyond just a figurehead vesting with him some discretionary. prerogative,and preventive powers. though ambiguoosly, which meant that the kjng couldplay a crucial role in times of crisis., e.g. dissolution of the HOR. emergency.and mobilizution of army. The military has always been loyal to themonarchy and nOl. to the political panics.

How the palace responded and reacted to the emerging politicul situationsis clearly m:mifested in King Gyandendra's acts of taking power back inOctober 2002 :Uld February 2005. Even before these events. the palacemanipulated the emerging situations intra and inter-party conl1icts whichweakencd the PM's position - in order to expand its power bases. Even lateKing Birendra - atlributed as a low profile king after his tmgic death - hadslowly but steadily taken power back. His decision and wish prevuiled morein nomination of members of Nationul Assembly and Raj flar;satl. inappointment of the head of constitutional bodies. ambassadors and otherhigh-ranking posts, pointing to the curtailmenl of the PM's executive powers(Hachhethu 2000: 90-116). By manipulating the Supreme Court. the palacetactically disanned Ihe PM from his right to dissolve the HOR. The late KingBirendra's action was conlined 10 spread the palace's tentacles bymanipulating the conflict ridden politics. But King Gyanendra. succeedingIhe Ihrooe in June 2001 after the royal massacre clearly indicated hisambition to become an absolute monarchy. He successfully used PM Sher B.Dcuba. the leader of splinter group of the NC, to do away with formalpolitical structures by dissolving the HOR and nOl. extending the life of localelecled bodies which eventually paved the way for the revi\'al of the royalregime since Oclober 2002.

Summing up of the background of the revival of the royal regime is inaccounl. The post-l990 PMs were conmained by the development of anumber of adverse situalions. First, the power centric intr.l-party connicts inthe ruling pany had continued to weaken PM's position. Two, the position ofPM was devalued consider:lbly in the second parliament, featured by hungparliament and coalition politics. M.M. Adhikari was de jure leader and S.B.Dculxl was junior leader in their own parties. While Adhikari held the PM'spost of the UML minority government, Deuba led a coalition government ofNC, RPP and NSP (1995-1997) and the Ne majority government (2001-2).The leadership of RPP in two successive coalition governments from March1997 to April 1998 and ils proximity with the palace had its own implicationfor weakening PM's role vis-b.-vis the monarchy. Thirdly, post-l999 PMs'dependency on the king increased as a consequence of the intensification ofthe Maoist activities for which the government wanted the mobilization ofarmy. The constitutional provision of keeping the military away fTOm the

Political Leadership in Nepal 37

jurisdiction of Ihe cabinet and the loyalty of the anny to the mooarchy limitedthe p~rs power in a crisis silUatioo. Fourth. both the NC and the UML­.....hile in opposition - formally requested the king to disarm the PM from hisprerogative to dissoh'e the parliament. All the above-mentioned faClOr" hadan accumulati\'e effect in weakening the PM's power and position vis-a-vismonarchy.

Leadership StructureThe problem of democracy. pany and leadership in Nepal is also discussed inanOlher perspective, beyond personal attribute of leaders :md leader.-.hipenvironment. A number of ethnicity-centric writings on Ncpali politic7 pointOUI deficiency of party leadership in terms of its caSle/ethnic composition.Considering the elitist nature of Nepali politics dominated by the high casteHindus - the Brahmin and Chhetri - ethnic bascd studies hit hard on the factthat pany leadership could 110t becomc a reOlx:tion of "SOCiHI integration" :md"a conlitioll of socio-cconomic cleavages", which showed a narrow socialbase of leadership in Nepal.

Caste/Ethnic Composition of Memocrs of HOR and partics' CentralCommittee

Ilouse of Re cntalh-cs* Panics' Central Commiuec'"CasleJc:thni..:u)' 1991 19'J.l 1999 Ne UML RPP 'M NSP NWPPIQlaI numbc:r 205 205 205 2' ... 41 38 29 •Brahmin 37.6 -H.O 37.6 62.06 65.21 19.51 ~.73 · 22.22Chhnri 19.1 19.5 20.5 10.34 10.86 31.70 1.84 · 11.11

!\e"lIr 06.' 06.3 06.' 344 13.<» .t.87 1052 · 66.66HilI Ethnic 15.2 12.2 1.t.7 13.79 6.51 26.82 21.05 · .GrooMTarai 21.0 20.0 19.5 10.34 4.34 11,07 5.26 100 -Comlllunitlc:$O<h«> 2.' 2.0 25 . . . 10.52Tl)(al 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Source,* liDS. 2000. The Fourth "m1lamentary E1ecllOlI. K.nhmandu.Institute for Integrated Development Studies. ** Lok Raj Sam!. Krishna P.Khanal and Krishna Hachhethu. 2002, "Responsiveness of Nepali PoliticalSystem". (Unpublishcd Report)

The table shows that the leadership lit central level in both parties andparliament, except the N$P and the NWPP, corresponded to the paradigm of'dominant hill Bahun-Chhetri' and 'minorities janajati, IIuldheshi and dalit' .Some previous studies (Baral. Hachhethu and Sharma 2OCIl; Hachhethu2002) and a recently completed survey of 800 activists of different fields alsoconfirmed the domination of the hill high caste groups in the leadershipstructure, The caste ethnic breakdown of 120 political activists (21 centraland 89 local leaders) out of total 800 surveyed activisllO are: hill

38 CNAS Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1 (January 2007)

Brahmin/Chhetri (42.7%), hill ethnic group including Newar (19.1%), taraigroup induding MUSlllman (26%) ,md others (10%). TIle available data ofparty leadersbip structure dearly demonstrate that the advent of multipartydemocracy did not make any difference on the domination of one particulargroup in power structure of the country. In the past, during the party-lessregime, the people of hill high-caste groups and the weJl-t<rdo families heldmost of the panchayat posts from village 10 national level.~ Several factorswork for the continuation of domination of the high-caste hill groupS" in thepower structure of the country.

The main reason behind the ascendancy of the hill caste group over otherethnic communities in Nepali politicS relates to social stratification of thepeople of the Hindu Kingdom of Nepal into four groups- Brahmin, Chherri.Vaishyo and Sudra- as prescribed by the Hindu scriptures. [n the ascend:mcyorder, Bruhmjns and Chhetris are placed at the lOp with their high ritualposition: Chhetris as the ruling class and Brahmins as the priests and theadvisors to the rulers.\" Although the Civil Code of 1963 legally abolished asysTem of caste domination and discrimimltion, the hill high castes haveretained their domin:mee over the political power structure througholl1 thehistory of the country.

Critics of elitist composition of party leadership in Nepal ignored severalother fac.tors which explain why it is so, It is widely acknowledged andempirically confirmcd that most p<lrty leaders all over the world are drawndispropOrtionately from group of a higher soci<reconomic background. lo InIndia, the people from high caste groups and the big land-holding class havedominated the composition of party leadership,lT The leadership of politicalparties in Pakistan and Bangladesh is largely constituted by tho:.e people whohave tmditionally enjoyed power and int1uence by virtue of their higherJX~ition in the social settings, their economic power based on big landholdings and other tinancial assets. their f,unily and kinship ties, and alsotheir cultivation of connections with local administr<ltive officials (Berman1983; Golam Hoosain 1984; Rashid and Kader 1997).

The history of elite formation in Nepal also wimessed the primacy ofpolitical ractors in the recruitment of political leadership (Hachhethu 2002).The politic:i1 contribution made by pany activists is the most imponantaspect for their emergence as party !caders. In:T country like Nepal. wherepolitical parties originated from and evolved around the democraticmovement, a person's record of political struggle find sacrilice is consideredmore important in the recruitment oneadership. It is the political backgroundof a person rather than his/her social status, \vhich is a critet10n for theattainment of lcader.;;hip position. Generally, party leadership is" recruitedIroTll those who have long ar>socialion with the party organization. Seniorityin service to the party is an important asset for promotion 10 leadershipposition.

Political Leadership in Nepal 39

The. ethnic factor had, however, its role 10 play in eleclOral politics. albeitless in voting behaviour but more- in party leaders' mind ,md perception.Leaders' perceptions of ethniCity and election made them imperative ingiving due weight to caste/ethnic factors of electoral tOnstituencies. Parties'accommodation to minorities through elections is renected by the fact thatthe JOllojari and Madheshi had greater represcnl.3tion in parliament than inthe panies' Central Commitlce.s. One qudy revealed that though theleaderShip in Nepali political parties at the highest level are elitist. it is broad­based and representative of diver:.e social elements at tbe local level(Hachhethu 2002: 94).

Although critics of Nepars e1ile ~trllctllrC have either knowingly orunknowingly ignored the complexity of leadership bUilding, this does notmean that one should be blinded !O the deliciencies of party representatives.The lll{)re the party leaders conslitute diverse social clements. the larger theparty"" social base. The heart of pluralist theory of elite ~ democracy ascon~istent with the cxi,~tcncc of multiplicilY of eHles - as illuWUlCd byGerailll Parry (1969) is, thcrefQrc. well laken by several academicians andelhnic -activists of Nepal. For inclusive dem(x:racy with proper caste/ethnic(epreselllation in the political power structure, several proposals are in theoffing, i.e. proportional elcclOr:ll system, federalism, autonomy, andreservation.

ConclusionComing back to lhe matter of IC<ldership in thechanged context of the revivalof the royal regime since October 2002, the arguable question is: will thepolitical purtie" and leadership come tip with different wnys from that of thepast in the 1'001-1990 period'! Parliamentary parties launching democracyresurgence movement have observed the masses' indifference in the recentconflict between the king and parties. il is not becaLl.~e people suppOrt theroyal regime. Contradictory tl) King Gyanendra's claim of his actions as perpeople's will and aspirations. democracy surveys In Nepal clearlydel11onstr::lte people's commitment to democracy despite their dissatisfactionwith the way democracy was handled by parties between 1990 to 2002.Nearly two-thirds of surveyed respondentS said "democnlcy is beller in allcircum"tances" and 79 per celll affirmed the suitability of democracy inNepal. 11le reason why the people at the moment are not responding to theparties' call for participation in democracy resurgence movement is that theyhave nOl proved anything v.nrthwhiJc in the immediate past. from 1991-2004.

It seem.s that parties and leaders now realize that they need to rebuild theirlost credibility in order 10 enhance mass mobilization. The comedy-sketchpresented in the beginning of the paper has a clear message - that people nolonger want power wielders. They are looking for real leaders. Parties andleaders should also pay attention that a system of semi-constitutional

40 CNAS Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1 (January 2007)

monarchy is obstructive to the promotion and consolidation of democracy asproved in the past. Besides. democracy would take root only if the leadershipstructure is inclusive. To talk ,md discuss about reconstruction of an effecti veleadership, rejection of semi.-constitutional monarchy, and inclufI,ivedemocracy along with leadership reflecting social diversity is extremelyimportant. lJl doing so, the roles of p:1l1ies and leadership become vital onceagai.n. How near or far is the destination? The answer lies in the extent theparties are willing to go to in order to enhance their capability of massmobiJizatioll in the ongoing democracy resurgence movement.

•This pap~r was presentoo in 11 seminar on "Activism and Civil Society i.ll SouthAsia", organi~~d by Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Unh·ersit:.: ofOxford, Oxford. UK on 26~28 Junc 2005. and 11lso in "Discourse on Connict,Democracy and Peace: Transformation in Nepali Societ)". organi~kd by Centre forNepal ,md Asian Studies (CNAS), Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu. Ncpnlon 10-11 July 2005.

NotesI. The classical elite theorists like Pareto. Mosca, Harold Lasswcll etc. strongly

ernph<tsized the r-;:rsonal quality of individu<tl in leadership positions. See forPareto. Mosca and Lasswell's approaches of leadership in Peter Bachamch. TheTheory of I)em()(:ratic Elitism: A Critique. London: University of London PressLimited, 1969.

2. For detailed about pany politics in 1951"1%0 sce Anirudha Gurla, Po/iries inNepal: A Srudy of Post-RaT/a Political Del'e!opmellt and Parry Politics; Bombay:Allied Publishers. 1964: Bhuwan La! Joshi and Leo E. Rose, Detlu)LT(/tic"mo~'arions in Nepal: A Ca,w Srruly of Polith'al ACCl/ltllmtiOfl. Bcrkely:University of C<tlifornia Press, 1966.

3. For details about the NcpaJi politics in the post-1990 r-;:riod. sce Lok Raj Barnl.Nepal: Problems of Goremam;e. New Delhi: Konark Publishers Pvt. Lld., 1993;Lok Raj Baral, The Regionul Paradox: Essays ill Nepali and SO//th AsiiUl Affllirs.Delhi: Adroit Publi~hers, 2000; Michael HUll, cd., Nepal in the Nillelies. Delhi:Oxford University Press, 1994; M<tnin Hoftun, William Raeper and JohnWhelpton, People. P()litic.~ alld ideology: Democracy and Social Change ill

Nepal. Kathmandu: M<tndal<t Book Point. 1999; POLSAN, Political Panies andthe Parlimlli.'lItary Proa.l"s in Nepal: A Stwiy of rhe Transitiol/al Phase.K<tthmandu: Political Science Associ<ttion of Nepal. 1992: Ole Borre, Sushil RajP<tndey and Chilra Krishna Tiwari, Nepalese Politit'al Behaviour. New Delhi:Sterling, 1994; Dhruba Kumar. cd.• Slate, Leaden'hip and Politics ill Nepal.KMhmandu: Centre for Nepal and Asillil Studies, 1995: Dhtub<t Kumar. cd..Domestic Conflict ami Crisis of Goverllllbility ill NefJul. Kmlummdu: Centre forNcpnl and Asi<tn Studies, 2(X)(): 1'. Louise Brown, The Cha/{cflge 10 Democrat)"jll Nepal: A Political flistory. Routledgc. 1996.

4. A survey on democracy in Nepal was conducted, frOIn August 6 to 20 September2004, in 163 polling stations (31 in urban <tnd 132 in rural Meas) that sprcucl over39 parliamentary constituencies of 38 districts. loe survey was based onprobability. three stages, and systematic random sampling in selection of both the

Political Leadership in Nepal 41

sample framc :md thl' sire. It was carried out using a structure que:;tionnaireadministered through face-to-face interviews with a fl.ltionwide sample of 3,249respondents. For full details see Krishna Hachhethu, Stale of Democracy illNepal: SUlvey Report. Kathmandu: SDSANllmcrnational IDEA. 2004.

5. For party-government relations in the Westcrn cOllntries, see Richard S. Katz andPctcr Mair, cds.. Now Parties Organize: Change and Adaptation in PartyOrgalli'1.ll/ioll.V ill Westem Democracies. London: Sage Publicmion, 1994; forIndian experiences, see W.H. Morris-Joncs. P(lrliament in India. Delhi:Longmans Grecn and Co. Lld.. 1957: artic1Cl; in James M:lI1cr. cd.. Nehru 10

Nineties. New Delhi: Viking. 1994.6. The objectives of the 1990 mass movement were limited to lift the ball on

political parties and to form an interim government, but the popular forcessuccessfully expedited their demands. in the post- movement interim period. upto the point for transformation of sovereignty 10 the peoplc. For details. seeKrishna Hachhethu, "'Mass Movcment 1990". Contributions to NeJXllese Sll/dies.Vol. l7. No. 2, July 1990, pp 177-201: Krishna Hachhethu, "Tran~ition toDemocracy in Nepal: Negotiation Behind Constitution Making. 199O".COll/ributions to Nepale.l'e Swdies. VoL 21, No. I, January 1994. pp 91- I26.

7. For ethnic aspel:ts of Nepali politics and elite formation. sec, Federick H Gaige.Regionalism and National Ullity ill Nepal. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.1975; David N. Gdlner Jonna Pf"aff-Czarnecka, and John Whelpton (oos).NQ/iOIl(l!ism alld Ethnicity in a Hindu Kingdom: The Politics of Clllture illComemporary Nepal. Amsterdnm: Harwood academic publishers. 1997; PrJ)"dgRaj Sharma. "Ethnicity and National Integration in Nepal: A Statement of theProblem", JOllmal of Nepalese Swdies, VoU, July-December 1987, pp.23-30;"How to Tend This Gardcn·'. Himal. May/June 1992. pp.7-9; Harka Gurung,"'Representing An Ethnic Mosaic", Nillwl, Op.Cif. pp. 19-21; Dilli Ram DahaL"Ethnic Cauldron, Demogrdphy and Minority Politics: The Case of Nepal" inDhruba Kumar (1995) Op. Cif.8. pp. 148- I70; Krishna B. Bhauachan."Ethnopolitics and Ethno-- development: An Emerging Paradigm in NC]xd" inDhruba Kumar (1995), Op.Cit. 8, pp.124-147; Ananta Raj POlIdyaL "NationBuilding in Nepal: A Case Study of the Post Revolution Period 1950-1981"(Unpublidhed Ph.D.Thesis). Kathnandu: Tribhuvan University. 1986; "Nepal:Ethnicity in Democracy" in Lok RlU Baral, cd., Soulh Asia: Democracy multheRoad Ahelld. Kathmandu: POLSAN, 1992: "Nation, Nationalism and SomeIssues of National Consensus". C011triblltiOTls to Nepolese SII/dies, VoI.IS, No.l.January 1991.

8_ Sec for leadership pattern at local level during partyless pallchaym system. L.S.Baml, ''The First Panchayal Elections in Nepal, 1962-63: The Emergencc of ANew Political Generation", Il1IematiOl1al Studies, VoLI2, January-December1973: Lok Raj BaraL "Village Politics and Development: A Study of threeVillage Panchayats" (Unpublished Memo). Kathmandu: cNASrru. 1978:"Nepal: UJcal Politics and Some Trends of Social Change", Indian JOl/mal ofNepalese SlIldies. VoLL July-December 1987. pp.31-40; Lioncl Cllplan,Administration and Poiitics in II Nepalese Town: The Study of a District Capitaland it.l· £nl'l'rons, London: Oxford University Press, 1975: Pashnpati ShumsherJ.B. Runa and Mohammad Mohsin, A Smd Report 011 the Paltem oJ EmergingLeadershilJ ill Paf/Chllyef:J', Kmhmandu: CEDArrU, 1967: R.S. Chauhan, The

42 CNAS Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1 (January 2007)

Pohtien! DCI'elopmellt ill Nepal 1950-70: COllflid Between Tradition andModem/t.v. New Delhi: AssociMed PUblishing House. 1971; Abullaish.EjJeoirenc.I's of uiC(11 Leadership for Clwtlge Gild 1i-unsfol'lIIlIIiofl of RI/ra!Society, Kalhmandu: CEDNTU. 1981. See fm- the paltCTJ] of high rankingpanchayat leaders, Lok ]{;ij Saml. Plllrem of Reprc~'el1lutio/l in the Natimml!'undwy(/{ of Nepol. Kmhmandu: b~AsrrlJ. 1975: Rishikesh Shahn. "TIlt:Nepn!ese Ministerial Elite Since 1960: Change and Cominuily of the PoliticalElitc" in 77,e Nepalese Eli'e, Banaras: CcntCI' for the Sludy of Nepal nd:S;ilyendra Tripathi, .. Political Elite and Their Slralegies in Nepal" in nreNepalese Elite, Op.Cil.; S.C. Chahse... The Social Background of LegislaliveElile in Nep,ll, 1986", llldiwl JOJ/f/wl ofNcplIle,l/! Politics, Vo!. I. July-Dcccmher1987. pp.81-92.

9. Sucb a religioll ba.~cd hiennchical social slrueture was IcgiJJly reinforced andSlriCtly praetieed as state protecled idNllogy wilh the enactmelll of Civil Code1854 '" hich further clmlsified .several caste and ethnic groups into three broadercategories in ascendancy order: (a) TlIgadlwri (~"lcrcd-thread wCllring easte~.

Arahmin and Chhetri) at lhe top th) Ma!Wa{iJ (alcohol drinking ca~te.,,:md dhnicgrotlp~) in the mi(Wle. and (c) A.mdlw fa Adr/wt (impure alld untouchnble castes)at the lOwest position. For ullder:;tanding of Mnltilled hierarchical social scuingof Nepal in dive~e pen;pectives. see, P.R. Shanna. "Nepali Cui lure and Society:Reflections on SOl11e Hisloricul Currents" in Kamal P, Malla, ed.. Nepal:Pel"SfJCCliw's ()It Caminuity alld Chal/ge, Kathmandu: CNAsn'u, 1989, pp.139­68; Dvr Bahadur Bista. Fl1/ali~'m (//Id Development: Nepal's Sll'ussle fl,!rJ\Jll!demi:illi/!I1. Calcuua: Orielll Longrnan. 1991.

10. Many sludio:" on political parties resulted in U C0I111110n finding that leaders areusually of a higher socio--cconomic background. ·Examining correlation betweenpolitical po,,;ition and socirtl sltlluS Robcrt D. Putnam postulated agglutinationthcory of elite compo~ition and bc specific<! education, w~t.lth and social "t:llus~ "polilical resources" behind the formation of lead~n;hip. Sec, ]{obert D.PUTnall1. The Comparari\'f; Stud}' of Political Elires. New Jersey: Premice-Hall.lnc.. 1976.

I L See, Myroll Weiner, /'t1T1}' Bllildhlg i/l (/ Nl'II' Nari()n: 711(' Indiall NationalCIJlIgreJs, Chicago: Universily of Chicago PrcSS. 1967; Stanlcy A. Kochanek.The COlIsreH Party of IlIdia: Thi' D)'lItlmkl' of One-PaNy Democracy,PrincetOn: Prineelon Universily Pre~s. 1968: B.S. Bhargava, Gmu RoolS

£.ew1crship: A Study of l£adl!r.\'hip ill Palldw)"at Raj JIl.I·li/lltirms, New Delhi:Ashish Publishing House, 1979: V.M. Siriskur, nw Rlllillg Elite ill tI Dcrt/opingSociety, New Delhi: Oricnt Longmans Lld.. 1970.

ReferencesB;)ral, Lok R[~. Krishna Hachhethu and Hari Sharma 2001. Leadership ill Nepal.

Delhi: Adroit Publishers.

Barman, Dalem Ch. 1993, "Emerging Leadership Pattern in Rural Bangladesh"(unpublished Ph.D.Thesis). Jaipur: UniveJ1lity of Rajsthan. H",Qsain. A.K_M.Golarn, 1984. "Bangladesh Natioml!ist Party: A Polilical Analysis"(Unpublished Ph.D.Thesis), Rajsthan: University of Rajsthan, 1984; AbbasRlIshid & Shahid Karder. "Baseline Assessmelll of Politic;)1 Parti~ and Party

Political Leadership in Nepal 43

System in Pakistan", tm unpublished ankle fJfc$Cllted to Nation:tl Democr<lticln~titute for Internal Affairs. Wtlshinglon. August 1997.

Blomlel, JclHl. 1987. Political u;(/llf'rship. New Delhi: Sage Publiemions.

BredlCr, Mit:hael. 1969. Politieul Leadership in India. Loodon: Frederick A. Pr<legerPublishers.

Elgie. Roberl. 1995. Politi<:al Leader,rltip ill Liheral Dell!(I{·f(jI..·ies. London:Muc1l1illan Press Ltd. (sccun(] printing).

Gcmint Parry. 1969. Polilical Elites. London: George Allcn .Uld Unwin Ltd. 1969.

Hochhcthu. Krishnll. 2000. "Political Parties. Political Crisis <lnd Problems ofGovernancc". In Dhruba Kunmr (cd.). DOllle.l·tit; Conflier alld the Cri,lis illGorel"l1ability in Nepal.. Kathmandll: Centre for Nepal and A~ian Studies. pp.90-116.

Hachhelhu. Krishn... 2002. Party Buildillg ill Nepal: Organiwtioll. Lefldership andPeople, A comprrrmil'l' Slll(~\' of the Nepedi Congress (Ind Ihe COlnl/llll/iw Partyof Ncpol (UnijiNl Milfxi.>t·L,eninist). Kllthmandll: Mondaln Book Point.

K.C.. Sllrendra. 1999. Nepal 11I11 COlIlllIl/lliu Aruio{em/w {til/{l,I' (History of CommunistMovcrnclll in Nepal) Kalhrnandu: VidY3rthi Pu~wk Bh3ndar.

Pye. Lllcian W. 1985. ,hiol/ Power and P(Jlilic.~, London: Hnrward University Press.